A record of recent High Court of Australia cases: decided, reserved for judgment, awaiting hearing in the Court's original jurisdiction, granted special leave to appeal, refused special leave to appeal and not proceeding or vacated

1: Cases Handed Down
2: Cases Reserved
3: Original Jurisdiction
4: Special Leave Granted
5: Cases Not Proceeding or Vacated
6: Special Leave Refused

Summary of New Entries

1: Cases Handed Down

Case	Title
Public Service Association of South Australia Incorporated v Industrial Relations Commission of South Australia & Anor	Administrative Law
J T International SA v Commonwealth of Australia; British American Tobacco Australasia Limited & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia – Orders Only	Constitutional Law
RCB as Litigation Guardian of EKV, CEV, CIV and LRV v The Honourable Justice Colin James Forrest, One of the Judges of the Family Court of Australia & Ors – Orders Only	Constitutional Law
Baker v The Queen	Criminal Law
Douglass v The Queen – Orders Only	Criminal Law
Patel v The Queen	Criminal Law
The Queen v Khazaal	Criminal Law
Minister for Home Affairs of the Commonwealth & Ors v Zentai & Ors	Extradition
Sweeney (BHNF Bell) v Thornton – Special Leave Refused by Enlarged Bench	Torts

2: Cases Reserved

Case	Title
RCB as Litigation Guardian of EKV, CEV, CIV and LRV v The Honourable Justice Colin James Forrest, One of the Judges of the Family Court of Australia & Ors – Orders Made	Constitutional Law
Andrews & Ors v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited	Contract Law
Certain Lloyds Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IHOOAAQS v Cross; Certain Lloyds Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IHOOAAQS v Thelander; Certain Lloyds Underwriters Subscribing to Contract No IHOOAAQS v Thelander	Costs
State of New South Wales v Williamson	Costs
Cooper v The Queen	Criminal Law
Douglass v The Queen – Orders Made	Criminal Law

3: Original Jurisdiction

Case	Title
TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v The Judges of the	Constitutional Law
X7 v Australian Crime Commission and Anor	Constitutional Law

4: Special Leave Granted

Case	Title
Baini v The Queen	Criminal Law
Commissioner of Police v Eaton & Anor	Jurisdiction
Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd	Taxation
Mills v Commissioner of Taxation	Taxation

1: Cases Handed Down

The following cases were handed down by the High Court of Australia during the August 2012 sittings.

Administrative Law

Public Service Association of South Australia Incorporated v Industrial Relations Commission of South Australia
A7/2011: [2012] HCA 25.

Judgment delivered: 11 July 2012.

Coram: French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ.

Catchwords:

Administrative law – Judicial review – Excess or want of jurisdiction – Appellant commenced proceedings in Industrial Relations Commission of South Australia ("Commission") – Commission had jurisdiction with respect to "industrial disputes" which meant a dispute about an "industrial matter" as defined by Fair Work Act 1994 (SA) ("Act") – Commission determined that it…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading High Court Bulletin

Details

AGLC: High Court Bulletin [2012] HCAB 8
Case: [2012] HCAB 8
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Public Service Association of South Australia Incorporated v Industrial Relations Commission of South Australia & Anor was an administrative law case before the High Court of Australia. The appellant had commenced proceedings in the Industrial Relations Commission of South Australia, which had jurisdiction with respect to "industrial disputes" as defined by the Fair Work Act 1994 (SA). The Commission determined that it lacked jurisdiction because there was no industrial dispute. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia dismissed the summons for judicial review because s 206 of the Act excluded review except for "excess or want of jurisdiction", which it interpreted as excluding failure or refusal to exercise jurisdiction. The appellant argued that the Commission had a duty to determine the jurisdictional fact of the existence of an industrial dispute, that s 206 of the Act precluded mandamus but not prohibition and certiorari, and that "excess or want of jurisdiction" in s 206 of the Act included jurisdictional error or only some species of jurisdictional error. The High Court held that the Commission did not have a duty to determine the jurisdictional fact of the existence of an industrial dispute, that s 206 of the Act precluded mandamus but not prohibition and certiorari, and that "excess or want of jurisdiction" in s 206 of the Act included jurisdictional error. The Court also held that the power to issue mandamus to inferior courts and tribunals was a defining feature of State Supreme Courts and that s 206 of the Act limited State Supreme Court jurisdiction to exercise judicial review for jurisdictional error.

Baker v The Queen was a criminal law case before the High Court of Australia. The appellant and his co-accused were jointly tried for murder, with the co-accused acquitted and the appellant convicted. The co-accused made certain admissions in a police interview and to witnesses ("out-of-court confessional statements"). The appellant argued that the out-of-court confessional statements were admissible in exculpation of the appellant as an exception to the hearsay rule. The High Court held that the out-of-court confessional statements were not admissible in exculpation of the appellant as an exception to the hearsay rule.

Patel v The Queen was a criminal law case before the High Court of Australia. The appellant was convicted of manslaughter and unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm. The prosecution alleged that the appellant breached his duty by deciding to operate on certain patients. The appellant argued that "surgical treatment" in s 288 of the Criminal Code (Q) did not encompass the decision to operate. The High Court held that "surgical treatment" in s 288 of the Criminal Code (Q) encompassed the decision to operate.

The Queen v Khazaal was a criminal law case before the High Court of Australia. The respondent was convicted of making a document "connected with... assistance in a terrorist act", knowing of that connection, contrary to s 101.5(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The trial judge directed the jury that the words "connected with... assistance in a terrorist act" had no special or technical meaning. The respondent argued that the trial judge misdirected the jury. The High Court held that the trial judge did not misdirect the jury.

Minister for Home Affairs of the Commonwealth & Ors v Zentai & Ors was an extradition case before the High Court of Australia. The first appellant determined to surrender the first respondent for extradition to the Republic of Hungary for the qualifying extradition offence of "war crime". The "war crime" was not an offence under Hungarian law at the time of the acts said to constitute the offence. The respondent argued that the offence for which extradition was sought must be an offence in the Requesting State at the time of the acts or omissions constituting the offence. The High Court held that the offence for which extradition was sought did not have to be an offence in the Requesting State at the time of the acts or omissions constituting the offence.

Madeleine Louise Sweeney bhnf Norma Bell v Thornton was a torts case before the High Court of Australia. The applicant suffered personal injury when she crashed a car when navigating a bend. The Court of Appeal found that the supervisor's failure to warn the driver to reduce speed did not constitute a breach of the duty of care. The applicant argued that the Court of Appeal erred in its findings on causation and in its limitation of effect of the respondent's admission on the content of the duty of care. The High Court held that the Court of Appeal did not err in its findings on causation and in its limitation of effect of the respondent's admission on the content of the duty of care.

In summary, the High Court of Australia heard several cases in August 2012, including administrative law, criminal law, and torts cases. The Court held that the Commission did not have a duty to determine the jurisdictional fact of the existence of an industrial dispute, that s 206 of the Act precluded mandamus but not prohibition and certiorari, and that "excess or want of jurisdiction" in s 206 of the Act included jurisdictional error. The Court also held that the out-of-court confessional statements were not admissible in exculpation of the appellant as an exception to the hearsay rule, that "surgical treatment" in s 288 of the Criminal Code (Q) encompassed the decision to operate, that the trial judge did not misdirect the jury, that the offence for which extradition was sought did not have to be an offence in the Requesting State at the time of the acts or omissions constituting the offence, and that the Court of Appeal did not err in its findings on causation and in its limitation of effect of the respondent's admission on the content of the duty of care.

Orders